Free Republic

"This is a huge victory, for them to say that means they are thinking that in those editorial rooms...."


Would that it were so but it isn't. I have been listening to the press carefully this week and there has been no acknowledgement from the Liberal press about how subtantively they were wrong on the major issues of the day. The historical facts are inarguable: communism collapsed and Reagn's economic policies set off a 16 year boom. The Liberal press will not admit this, of course, so they try to get away with the line that "gee, Regan was a nice guy and we did'n't report it". This is little more than dammning by faint praise.

The Liberal press predicted that Reganomics would double the inflation rate and cause the prime rate to go to 30%. Just the opposite occurred. The Liberal press predicted that Reagn's defense policies would cause World War Three. In reality, Reagn's peace through strength policy ended the Cold War and has greatly reduced the possbility of a nuclear war.

I suppose you are right on one point. to expect intellectual honesty from CNN and their ilk is a "bridge too far".

This mea culpa from Bernard Shaw is meaningless. The entire editorial staff and on air personnel of CNN should get on live television and admit that they viciously slanted their coverage becuase of liberal bias and they should further confess that on every major public policy and foreign policy issue of the 1980s that they were wrong and Ronald Wilson Regan was right.

Like a mountain that is obscured by a dust storm Ronald Regan's historic achievements in winning the cold war and turning around the economy are becoming obvious to all but the most fanatical liberals. The pygmies at CNN are now saying that they should have reported that Regan was a nice guy and a clever raconteur. This is a joke and an insult

Ann Coulter's book was a welcome antidote to the fifty years of Hollywood and establishment media propaganda about the anticommunist "witch hunt" of the 1950s. The obituary for Alger Hiss in the New York Times demonstrates, however, that left-wing groupthink still powerfully obscures these issues. The NY Times painted Hiss as a misunderstood martyr while blithely ignoring the revelations contained in the Venona transcripts that confirmed the treasonous acts of Hiss and others.

"He was able to verify that the Rosenbergs were spies of the first rank and helped confirm a lot of what is known as the Venona intercepts..."

The facts about the Rosenbergs were also extensively documented in the book "The Venona Secrets". The Rosenbergs were part of extensive Soviet-sponsored spy ring that was inteneded to steal US atomic secrets. At this point in time the fact that the Rosenbergs greatly compromised US national security is incontrovertible.

"The Venona Secrets" also demolished the innocence of a number of left-wing martyrs:

*Alger Hiss was a paid Soviet agent,

*J. Robert Oppenheimer gave US nuclear
to the Soviet Union by way of a paid
Soviet agent,

*Many parts of the antinuclear movement
were funded by Soviet intelligence.

"The connection you see is rather broader and deeper then even this article hints at."

The nexus that the article fails to name is 18th and 19th century Romanticism. I have come to the conclusion that all the poisonous totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century, including Marxism, spring from the rejection of reason and legitimate social authority. All of these intellectual trends seem to me be directly traceable from Romanticist strain of Western though extending from Rousseau to Nietzsche.

As almost all postmodernist intellectuals are mired in a Romanticist epistemology, it is not very surprising that these same intellectuals are blind to the totalitarian implications of their positions.

My critique of Mr. Dobb's article is based upon statistics involving Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the US over the last 20 years. It is well known among economists across the political spectrum that FDI has created a positive net number of jobs within the US economy. This number of net new jobs over the last 20 years includes the jobs that were lost to FDI by US companies in foreign jurisdictions.

I think Mr. Dobb's analysis trivializes the entire issue by focusing his analysis on statistics derived from the last few years. FDI in the US does consist, in part, in the acquisition of existing assets from US companies but the majority of FDI activity consists in the creation of new plants and facilities in the US. As bad as our economic climate is, in some respects, it is still relatively healthy compared to Western Europe's. We have benfitted from European policy mistakes.

If Mr. Dobb's could demonstrate a systematic pattern of disinvestment in the US economy over the last twenty years I would take his position more seriously; absent such an analysis his position could simply be founded on statistical noise.

I wish Mr. Dobbs would adrress himself to the tangible benefits of insourcing: the Nissan plants in Kentucky, the Hitachi and Samsung R&D facilities in California and Texas, the BMW plant in South Carolina, the Honda plants in Alabama.

By any accepted economic metric the US has benefited in terms of jobs from free trade agreements and insourcing more than we have host jobs through outsourcing or off-shoring. The ability of US firms to globally source supply and and production has been a source of competitive strength which has partially offset our lawsuit culture and completely ridiculous, anti-competitive corporate tax code.

If a protectionist regime in the US were imposed tomorrow it would do nothing to solve problems realted to out of control lawsuits and a coporate tax code that has twice the marginal rate of many of our economic competitors. Protectionism is economic snake oil and it will not increase employment as our economic rivals will build their plants in more hospitable climes.

"Goes to show you that the Koran isn't knowledge or a useful skill, rather its akin to worship of the angry moon god."

It is amazing how a group Islamo-philic scholars can miss the truth that is slapping them in the face. From the beginning of Islam the Koran was always considered to be a final and complete revelation to mankind thereby rendering the pursuit of basic scientific knowledge superfluous. The hostility toward capitalism and basic scientific research has been endemic to Islamic societies. I think it would be fair to say that Islam enjoyed a golden age of applied science and technology but largely suppressed fundamental scientific research.

In the Christian west, by contrast, St. Thomas Aquinas establsihed the doctrine of the Bible and book of nature as being twin revelations from God. It is no accident that basic science flourished in the West and stagnated in the Islamic world.

Morris has been consistent despite his tendency toward rhetorical overkill. As veteran of Bob Dole's 1996 campaign I can attest to the fact that a Senator's voting record can be highly damaging during a Presendrntial run.

Dole was hurt badly by the fact that he voted against the original Medicare bill in 1964! Spin and rhetoric can be modified but a Senatorial voting cannot. That is why so few sitting Senators have ever been elected President.

As Morris observes the ads are good and Kerry's reaction to the ads are very encouraging ("I voted that way but now I changed my mind....).

Morris is a great poolitical strategist but he tends to make a fool of himself when he attempts to handicap political races. I tend to ignore hiom when he speaks on any subject other than political strategy.

Dukakis had a 20 point in George Bush Sr. at a comparable time in 1988. Kerry has only received fawning coverage thus far from the media. He will be scuffled up badly during the next several months. The Dems would have had a better chance with Jon Edwards.

Keery is a stiff and a turkey whose Senatorial record will doom him to a Dukakis-like performance in November.

BUMP.

You succintly identified all the intellectual, quasi-religious idols of post-modernism: evolution, environmentalism, marxsism, and post-structuralism. You forgot to mention Freudianism another quasi-religious psuedo science that is still lionized in the academy but is clinically useless.

I would rather have a candidate who is not named Ryan but he appears to be the front runner in Illinois and I think he can go all the way because he has some crossover appeal.

Things certainly look a lot better for the Republicans holding this seat then they did 6 months ago.

"It seems that Barack Obama, not Hynes or Hull, will be the RAT to oppose Jack Ryan...."

I would rate and Obama-Ryan race as a tossup. In a state like Illinois which has a significant voter registration edge for the Democrats Republicans need help to win. This appears to be happening with Democrats selecting Obama who is a rhetorical lightning rod and potentially a very vulnerable candidate.

Utter nonsense. "Multiculturalism" is simply shorthand for "all things white and European.......BAD; all things black or brown..........GOOD".

Exactly so; this is what multiculturalism means in most University settings these days. The author of the post gives a fascinating overview of Literary culture but dances around the main issue which is whether there rationally understandable and universal aesthetic standards. The main thrust of philosophy over tha last 200 hundred years has been the relentless attack on the possibility of universal concepts. This anti-nomian bias has profoundly damamged the concept of art and the ability to make aesthetic judgements.

There are universal and objective standards that should allow any educated person to distinguish between Herman Melville and Harold Robbins. Multiculturaliam in the academy is really politics by other means. In order to enshrine a new political order it is first necsessary to trash the icons of the old order. Multicutualism has accomplished this task with remarkable rapdity.

Leo Tolstoy IS a btter writer than Elmore Leonard and George Washington is a more important figure than Harriet Tubman but by today's academic standards no one is allowed to state the obvious.

Rush had the stones to state the obvious. Donovn Mcnabb has been erratic quarterback whose primary deficiency is his inability to throw the deep ball accurately. His running ability compensates for this deficiency to some extent but defences are still able to "jump" the short routes against the Eagles leading to their overall sclerotic offensive performance.

The Eagles have other shortcomings but their offense is their Achilles heel and Mcnaab has to take a lot of the blame for this. At times the Eagles have looked like a better team when Mcnaab has been injured.

The real point is that the rest of the world will not accept a world trading regime that disproportionately benefits US firms. Many threads on FR advocate the unilateral raising of US tarriffs as the panacea for US competitiveness problems. Such a simple-minded approach won't work.

The recent rise in steel tarrifs were a perfect illustration in microcosm of short-sightedness of this approach. Big Steel in ths US is not competitive in the world market for a variety of reasons almost all of which are homegrown. Currency values account for perhaps 10% of the problem. The result of this exersize in protectionism was that domestic consumers of steel were punished and made uncompetitive and the rent-seeking managers of Big Steel were rewarded for their lobbying skills rather than upgrading their plant and equipment. This was, I submit, a disaster.

Until the US reigns in its out of control lawsuit culture, reforms its corporate tax regime and begins to take business competitiveness seriously we will continue to lose jobs to more nimble foreign companies.

Ford owns a controlling interest in Mazda and bought Jaguar outright. GM owns Saab and Opel and has large stakes in a number of other foreign car companies. A large number of US compnaies have large direct investments in companies domiciled in other OECD countries.

The promoters of various simple-midnded protectionist schemes voiced on FR threads and other places promote the idea of American workers losing their jobs to shoeless workers in the developing world who are willing to work for pennies a day. The reality is that when a US worker is displaced it overwhelmingly much more likely to occur in favor of a European using advanced robotics or machining technology.

Anyone promoting protectionism should be asked to put their idea in the context of investment and trade with other OECD countries. From a foreign direct investment point of view the developing is a very small part of the US FDI exposure.

"Learn to do character acting, like the great actresses of the past...."

There are character roles for these actresses if they are interested in pursuing them. The complaint seems to be that thay are no longer treated and paid as they had been when they were able to land leading lady-type roles.

I personally have seen Charlotte Rampling in about 10 movies in the last 6 years. In most of these movies she had a good part. Given the fact that the once allluring Ms. Rampling now looks like death warmed over is testament to the fact that if you have good acting skills you can still continue to get work after 40. That these older actresses will not be cast in roles that require sexual allure should surprise no one.

Stupid woman.

Britain's draconian restrictions on private gun ownership have fostered an atmosphere of rampant criminality in that country. She and her baby would be MUCH safer in any US state that has legalized conceal and carry for individuals. OECD statistics bear this out.

"No, the Feds suspect that's what she did, but the crime she is being charged for is her manipulating the shares of Omnimedia when she told the press she was innocent."

Exactly correct and it is important that everyone undertstand this facet of the case agaianst Martha Stewart. The collapse of the post-bubble stock market created a witch hunt atmosphere which put tremendous pressure on the SEC to "get" corporate "insiders". Martha Stewart is a victim of this witch hunt on the part of Government regulators anxious to deflect blame for the stock market collapse.

The insider trading case against Martha fell apart when it was revealed that there was massive selling against the Imclone stock several months prior to Martha's sale of her block of stock when it was trading at $73.00 per share (she sold her block at $48.00). The real insiders bailed out at the top of this stock's trading range when it became apparent the FDA application for its only drug was not likely to be approved.

This prosecution illustrates the abuse of vague Federal securities laws on the part of over-zealous prosecutors. Every American observing this case should be sobered to realize that any American can be dragged in front of a Federal court on trumped up securities fraud allegations. It is a scandal; these laws are in need of reform as are the rules governing prosecutorial discretion on the part of SEC and other regulatory agencies.